In view of the changes in the labor market, the methods in personnel selection and personnel development are changing. Personnel decisions are increasingly fraught with risks due to resource scarcity and growing complexity. Aptitude diagnostics is therefore gaining in importance.
There is a multitude of test procedures on the market which, at first glance, are hardly distinguishable from one another, since mostly the same promises are made in keywords. On the websites and in the brochures of the providers, rather sparse information is usually given. Accordingly, most procedures can be used for almost all areas in personnel selection and development. Anyone who wants to decide for themselves which test fits their question cannot avoid a more detailed analysis.
First Orientation
The first orientation for choosing a test procedure is provided by the starting point in the company itself. Within the company, various functional areas and fields of application can be defined, which is useful as a basis for sorting the procedures.
Not all instruments on the market are suitable for every field of application, for every function or hierarchy level. Likewise, not every HR consultant, diagnostician, or coach has the necessary know-how to adequately accompany all processes of personnel selection and personnel development.
In addition, not all information from the various approaches of aptitude diagnostics is needed in every situation, but only those that reflect the actual, job-related and position- or function-specific requirements.
Quote: There are many personality questionnaires, the market is historically broad.
So that the multitude of approaches and instruments can be used correctly, it is usually necessary to put familiar, sometimes popular, but outdated processes to the test.
For example, in practice, for the selection of trainees, graduates, or young professionals, often only specific abilities, the grade point average, or the willingness to learn are asked. Frequently, so-called “home-made performance tests” are used to capture abilities and knowledge. The advantage here is (in well-designed tests) the direct company and requirement reference; the disadvantage, however, is generally the lack of validity and, in addition, usually a considerable workload.
A similar situation is often found in small and medium-sized enterprises. Personnel management is gradually professionalized depending on size and growth, but the regular use of selection procedures only finds its way into the HR department at a late stage.
The reason for this is a mixture of skepticism and understandable ignorance – after all, the offerings are generally worded and the provider market is large and confusing.
There are many personality questionnaires, the market is historically broad. The history of origin, scientific quality, and fields of application could hardly be more different. All the more confusing that the marketing messages, especially in this segment, are hardly distinguishable from each other.
A Brief Outline
The classic among test procedures and, historically speaking, the mother of all test procedures is the typology, originally developed by C.G. Jung, who in turn was inspired by the theory of temperaments of Hippocrates, who himself was presumably influenced by the basic structural order of the four elements. This systematization of personality is accordingly old and well established. Typological theories assign a person to one of several personality types and thus describe commonalities among people. A derivative of this are the DISC profiles, which are based on a further development by Marston of Jung’s typology idea.
Also easily accessible are profiles that provide information about individual values, goals, and motives. Based on a questionnaire, fundamental but very limited needs are measured in their extent, and the result is presented as a personality profile. This concept deals with the causes of human behavior and with emotions. No typologies are formed, but rather individual manifestations of motives are considered in their overall effect.
Also widespread is the Big Five model, which, however, enjoys significantly higher scientific reputation. The Five-Factor Model describes five main dimensions of personality. Using factor analysis, five very stable, independent, and largely cross-culturally stable factors were identified and confirmed by many studies.
While typological theories emphasize similarities, trait theories identify differences. Accordingly, trait-theoretical models are more user-friendly in practice, since they provide more differentiated personality descriptions. What these procedures have in common is the basic idea that a theory can describe different parts of personality. In this statement already lies the limitation of this approach. Since we seek the most comprehensive and appropriate information possible with test procedures, the question arises to what extent we can translate the theory-based approaches from the psychology of the last century into our era and into our everyday work requirements.
Almost every scientist in the field of aptitude diagnostics criticizes the old approaches, yet various procedures can still be found in HR practice. This has to do with the fact that HR professionals like to use these procedures because of their simplicity and the “recognition of themselves in them.” Few, mostly bipolar traits are measured; the allocations to well-known personality characteristics are obvious and catchy.
Download original german version
Misuse and Criticism
Various independent studies have found that there is a worrying imbalance between frequency of use and confirmed validity of procedures: the simpler the instrument, the higher the acceptance in practice, the lower the predictive validity and quality.
For example, the evaluation of application documents as well as the unstructured interview have been at the top of the popularity scale for years. Test procedures for recording cognitive performance, on the other hand, are rarely used, but they have high explanatory power for occupational aptitude, as do requirement-related tests.
Personality questionnaires measure personality and describe how a person tends to behave. Job positions (e.g., accounts payable) require that someone meets a number of requirements. This requires specific knowledge, competencies, and behaviors in order to do a good job. Behavioral tendencies rooted in personality can indeed be helpful or disruptive here, but they do not have to be. Hence the low predictive validity of personality tests. In addition, behavior is learnable. Admittedly, easier when it aligns with personal behavioral tendencies and more difficult when it runs counter to them – but not impossible. Thus, it can very well be the case that someone shows requirement-related, meaningful behavior in order to perform their work efficiently and effectively, even if this does not (fully) correspond to their personal behavioral tendencies or their personality. This fact must definitely be taken into account.
In addition, the use of procedures should help to describe individuality. Professor Martin Kersting observes in his study on the Barnum Effect in personality reports that many contain rather generally valid statements, which are not effective in the sense of a test and in fact undermine its effectiveness – such as: “You dislike people who act self-righteously or overly moralistic.” Interestingly, he also finds that “a little Barnum does no harm,” since such statements can create trust. However, the study also shows that the procedures which contain little Barnum are those most based on the latest scientific findings, for example, on data-driven behavioral observations.
Requirements for Job-Relevant Diagnostics
The use of aptitude diagnostic procedures for selection situations in the workplace requires job and function reference. Not only the subfactors of the dimensions should show behavioral proximity and job relevance, but the entire construction and research of a procedure should be oriented towards workplace situations.
Some tests are developed on the basis of theories that have nothing to do with job requirements, but rather with behavior observations in general. The mere reformulation of dimensions and the subsequent integration of job-related terms brings more benefit to providers than to users and companies.
However, there are also tests that are based from the outset on observed behavior in everyday working life, and whose entire test construction as well as empirical data basis are built upon it; these are in fact suitable for recruiting and requirement-related development.
Conclusion
Apart from the criticism of the theoretical backgrounds of some procedures, which complain that the traits measured do not correspond to the current state of personality research, there remains the fact that a small number of job-related personality traits generally represents a weakness in the use of test procedures in occupational practice.
It should be clear that all traits used for personnel selection and development must have job reference and thus occupational relevance. The same applies to the questions presented to the respondent in order to ensure acceptance.
Procedures developed in recent years have often been specifically designed for everyday work. Certain criteria confirm this and allow traceability, for example:
- Job-related items and dimensions
- Manipulation and falsification indices that indicate the degree of social desirability
- Economical in terms of efficient applicability and good cost-benefit ratio
- Acceptance, both among users and respondents. Acceptance for users increases with good translatability of the dimension into requirements. Acceptance for respondents increases when the questionnaire shows job relevance and does not take too much time.
- Scientific basis and compliance with DIN 33430
- Transparent and documented constructions
- Solid data and research basis
The clarification of needs should be taken very seriously. In order to find the right and suitable instruments, various considerations and questions must be clarified in advance.
This includes not only test-specific factors, but also questions about the strategy, goals, and culture of the company.
References
- Martin Kersting (2015): Das beschreibt mich und andere. Management Personaldiagnostik. Personalmagazin 9/15.
- Victor Lau (2015): Grundlagen der Eignungsdiagnostik. Steinbeis-Edition, Stuttgart.
- Stephan Weinert, Klaus P. Stulle (2015): Executive Assessment. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
- Werner G. Faix, Michael Auer (2009): Talent. Kompetenz. Management. Steinbeis-Edition.
- Rüdiger Hossiep, Oliver Mühlhaus (2005 and 2015): Personalauswahl und –entwicklung mit Persönlichkeitstests. Hogrefe Verlag GmbH & Co. KG.